Analyzing 'Food Insecurity' Poverty in ASEAN: A Comparative Study of Poverty Alleviation Programs in Indonesia Pre and Post-COVID-19

Abstract

Countries whose economies depend on or are supported by agriculture are called agricultural countries so agriculture is a country where the majority of the population is engaged in the farming sector. Countries that are successful as agricultural countries and can overcome poverty because they provide many jobs include Japan, the Netherlands, the United States, Australia, and China. These five countries have succeeded in alleviating poverty by maximizing their agricultural potential. This is different from other agricultural countries in ASEAN, including Indonesia, because the poverty rate is still relatively high. This is a dilemma because food-producing agricultural countries experience quite high levels of poverty. This research aims to reveal the facts of poverty in Indonesia and ASEAN as agricultural countries and analyze the relationship between poverty alleviation programs and poverty to obtain their effectiveness. Disclosure of poverty facts in Indonesia and ASEAN as agricultural countries uses secondary data, collected from various sources, such as the ASEAN Report. The relationship between types of aid and poverty in Southeast Sulawesi uses secondary data sourced from various relevant institutions/ministries. The panel data type and time series compare the performance of poverty alleviation assistance programs before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, precisely between 2018 and 2022. The panel data is then analyzed using Path Analysis by carrying out difference tests, classical tests, and linear regression tests. The results of the analysis show that there are significant differences in poverty levels before and after the Covid-19 pandemic. However, no significant differences were found in the variable number of poor people. The BPNT program does not affect poverty alleviation, while PIP and DD can reduce poverty significantly. The research findings for scientific implications are that poverty alleviation assistance with the Non-Cash Food Assistance (BPNT) scheme does not have a significant role in reducing poverty, while education assistance (PIP) and village funds are proven to play a role in reducing poverty. The theoretical implication is the application of these findings so that experts and researchers consider this when including it as an object (variable) in reflecting the correlation relationship with poverty alleviation. The practical implication is that the Government, through TNP2K, will continue the PIP and DD programs and revise the BPNT program. This is because the two poverty alleviation programs are effective in reducing poverty rates, while BPNT is not effective. Furthermore, the government's focus in the future will not only be on how to reduce the poverty rate but also how to reduce the number of poor people.